I have always thought that we had to use one of the approved USGWeb Project
logos on at the least our home page. With that being said, it is important
to add "approved" to their terminology or we'll have anything that anyone
wants.
kemis
From: gagen-bounces(a)rootsweb.com [mailto:gagen-bounces@rootsweb.com]On
Behalf Of Michael and Vivian Saffold
During the last election the AB and the Elections Committee was
adamant
*were*
Vivian
No one asked for my opinion, but here it is anyway.
The USGWeb Project has had logo issues for years; inappropriate
linking is just one. This amendment is an opportunity to address
those issues, but it is not specific or comprehensive enough.
Example: The proposed amendment does not specify that the logo must
be an official one. This might seem to be an insignificant point, but
many sites are using old logos.
During the last election the AB and the Elections Committee was
adamant that if one of the four logos on the national Web page was
not displayed, a member could not vote. However, nothing in the
current bylaws requires this.
The definition of "prominent" placement needs to be addressed, but
the membership has repeatedly resisted any efforts at regulation.
The National Coordinator proposes to address the problems in steps,
which would make it necessary to do this all over again some time in
the future.
I would prefer that the national organization severely limit its
restriction and direction of state business. Including requirements
concerning state logos is this amendment is "scope creep." The
national project already has enough pressing issues.
Of our 104 coordinators, only five have responded regarding the issue
of the GA project sponsoring the amendment. Unless there is a
groundswell of support or opposition in the next couple of days, I
will consider it dead.
Vivian